LAUREL WIRES LTD, V. IYIO 8(2)2,

MA 34/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4565 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHABANA PARVEEN
• Assessee Lawyers: P V DESAI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - A BENCH MUMBAI , , BEFORE SH.SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SANJAY GARG,JUDICIAL MEMBER (M.A. NO.34/MUM/2016-ARISING OUT OF ITA NO .5466/MUM/2013-ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) LAUREL WIRES LIMITED C-203, CRYSTAL PLAZA, NEW LINK ROAD ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI-400 053. PAN: AAACL 5522 F VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-8(2)(2) INCOME TAX OFFICE, ROOM NO.212, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 2 ND FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. ( / APPLICANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY :SHRI P.V. DESAI /RESPONDENT BY :MS. SHABANA PARVEEN / DATE OF HEARING :06.05.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.07.2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, A.M. VIDE ITS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION,DATED 11.2.2016, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS STATED THAT CERTAIN MISTAKES WERE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ,DT.28.10.2015,THAT THE SAME NEED TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 25 4(2)OF THE ACT. 2. IN ITS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER MENTION ED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE TRIBUNAL ,AT PARA NO.6 ,HAD HELD THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE YEAR WERE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF EAR LIER YEAR,THAT THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR AY.2004-05, T HAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) HAD PL ACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENTS OF SHRI SWASTIK STEELS(264ITR447) AND KAMLESH R. AGARWAL(HU F) (282 ITR-AT-117), THAT IT WAS ARGUED THAT PENALTY U/S. 271B COULD NOT BE LEVIED F OR THE SECOND YEAR I.E. 2005-06, THAT THERE WAS DELAY IN CARRYING OUT THE STATUTORY AUDIT AND O BTAINING TAX AUDIT REPORT FOR THE EARLIER YEAR, THAT THE GROUND WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL ,THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE NO PENALTY U/S. 271B COUL D BE LEVIED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA - TION. 3 .DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE AR RE ITERATED THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE (DR) STATED THAT NO MISTAKE WAS APPEARING FROM THE RECORD,THAT THERE WAS DELAY IN O BTAINING THE REPORT IN ALL THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS,THAT PENALTY WAS LEVIED FOR ONLY TWO YEARS. MA-34/2016-LAUREL WIRES 2 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI SWASTIK STEELS(SUPRA)THE HONBLE COURT WAS DEALING WITH THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE DISPUTE BETWEEN DIRECTORS OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY C OULD BE A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DEFAULT. FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IT WAS HELD THAT EARLIER YE ARS ACCOUNTS WERE NOT COMPLETED.BEFORE US, NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCE TO PROVE THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF EARLIER YEAR WERE UN-COMPLETE.WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF KAMLESH R. AGARWAL-HUF(SUPRA)TH E TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT DELAY OF 5 MONTHS IN GETTING THE AUDIT REPORT WAS NOT UNREASON ABLE DELAY.THUS,THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE.IN SHORT,CASES RELIED UPON BY THE A SSESSEE DOES NOT HELP ITS CAUSE.HERE,WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REFER TO THE CASE OF RAMESH ELEC TRICALS(203ITR497)WHEREIN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE FAILURE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSI ON IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT.IN THE CASE BEFORE US,THERE IS NOT EVEN ANY ERROR OF JUDGMENT,SO WE HOLD THAT ORDER DATED 28.10.2015 NE EDS NO RECTIFICATION. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ! ' #$%&'() . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JULY,2016. $* ' % 15 ,2016 SD/- SD/- ( /SANJAY GARG ) ( / RAJENDRA ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 15 TH JULY,2016. . . . JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.